-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Bar Stool Economics
- Thread starter Leew
- Start date
Leew
New member
One problem with all the planing is that it all hinges around politicians, who can be hard to rely on sometimes. For Example:
(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Politicians are utterly laughable!!! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
The_Thunderer
New member
Oh, geez... they actually caught her quoting that...
At least there's a GOOD to FAIR chance that we'll be rid of her in a week and a day... Too bad we still might have her counterpart on the senate... "Dirty" Harry... blech...
At least there's a GOOD to FAIR chance that we'll be rid of her in a week and a day... Too bad we still might have her counterpart on the senate... "Dirty" Harry... blech...
tsst
Deuce is watching!
I wouldn't be so quick Fred. You will probably get boycotted for just suggesting she might lose her office.
:grin01: j/k Cali folk.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
I agree Kathy!
Lucille
New member
An interesting idea. But state governments derive significant income through local sales tax, there might be pressure not to let that money jump into federal coffers.
Currently at least here in Texas there are numerous things not subject to sales tax, it would be quite a deal to get everyone to agree when and how a federal sales tax would apply.
It has appeal, though. Those who purchase a lot would get taxed more, the frugal and poor less.
The_Thunderer
New member
Kathy, I had written up a positive response to your idea of a National Sales Tax. I LIKE the idea, with ONE caveat... make sure that the price displayed has the tax INCLUDED... that way I know what amount to bring to the cash register. LOL.
Other than that, I haven't thought about "in depth" and will probably have to ponder on it for a few days. Initially, things might seem "pricey" until "we the people" get used to it.
I hate bringing things to the cashier and not having enough for REGULAR sales tax as it is... I know... this is MY ooops.
Other than that, I haven't thought about "in depth" and will probably have to ponder on it for a few days. Initially, things might seem "pricey" until "we the people" get used to it.
I hate bringing things to the cashier and not having enough for REGULAR sales tax as it is... I know... this is MY ooops.
The_Thunderer
New member
Yeah... I know... gotta look at the bright side!! HOPE!
Hey, have you noticed that they're already boycotting AZ ANYWAY??? LOL. That includes me! I live in AZ!I wouldn't be so quick Fred. You will probably get boycotted for just suggesting she might lose her office.
I LIKE the idea that certain things are NOT taxed. There are a few places I've lived that did not tax groceries... I think Hawaii is like this still.
As it is, in AZ, "we" just voted to temporarily increase our sales tax by 1% to "supposedly" help our educational system. They say that this tax will "run out" or "end itself" in a couple of years. RIGHT!!! I'm sure THAT will happen... (LOTS of sarcasm on the italicized words).
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
It's an intriguing idea. I think in order to really consider it rationally, we would need to know what is actually collected annually in income tax, in order to comprehend what sort of percentage we would be looking at. If the income tax can be replaced with a nominal federal sales tax, say less than 10%, than I don't see much of a problem.
But if the national annual expenditure + debt is so high that replacing the federal income tax would require a 25% federal sales tax, I just can't see it as much of a positive step forward. The repercussions would be a true negative incentive to not purchase anything that wasn't absolutely necessary.
It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but might actually be impossible in practice due to the ramifications of implementation. I would support it, if it could be accomplished with a modest sales percentage tax.
Lucille
New member
I like that too. But all would have to agree on what to tax and what not to tax. Would you for instance tax only retail, or would their be tax on materials at each step of manufacture?
Would this tax be in addition to state sales taxes?
But see, you are COMPLETELY missing the point. In order to make the amount owed by each individual REASONABLE and AFFORDABLE, the government would be FORCED to lower the budget to realistic proportions. That so called "budget" the government pulls out of the air each year is totally and completely insane, and unless some method is employed to where the government bozos have no other choice but to do the right thing or all be strung up from the cherry trees lining the trees of DC, then that will NEVER happen. Any other method of figuring the tax rate will not provide the pain needed to make people MAD enough to FORCE this change. I believe it is fair. It is a PAINFUL fair, but in my opinion, the ONLY method that will shake people out of their lethargy and have them slapped alongside the face with what the government is doing to us while we stumble around half asleep and numb from lack of using our brains to try to figure out what the hell is really going on.
Man, I dunno, but with the economy already against the ropes with everyone squeezing their pennies till they yelp, is adding a TAX to everything, increasing the cost, really going to be a wise idea?
Personally, I would be suspicious of anything the government tries to "give" us. My guess would be that the federal sales tax would be ADDED to the tax burden rather than replacing it. Maybe there would be a promise to eventually phase out the income tax, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that promise to get filled.
Lucille
New member
You think that just because someone has to pay half their income they will realize what is going on? No way. Some people NOW pay half their income in taxes of various sorts.
And if you think that an across the board tax bill will politicize the ordinary family person, I think you are mistaken. They may simply do with less, starting a spiral downwards that would completely destroy the businesses that depend on small purchases by real folks to keep going. How is that fair?
I think you want a popular revolt against overtaxation. And I think many of us would agree that doing away with bloated incompetent government spending is a good thing. But it is not so simple, after all, on some level, we do have to have government.
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
No, I'm not missing the point at all. The point is that this country is trillions of dollars in debt, and accumulates billions of dollars in expenditures every year. You can't fight a war without creating HUGE bills to pay. To can't run a law enforcement agency without generating HUGE bills to pay. You operate interstate roadways, bridges, toll systems, DOT maintenance, and all other manner of infrastructure without generating HUGE bills to pay. These are the bare minimum necessary costs of the federal government, and we haven't even begun to discuss the petty things that might actually be able to be minimized or done away with.
There is no way a single, flat tax figure could possibly be approved that would be able to be affordably paid by every working citizen. The cost of running a country is FAR too high for it's citizenship to simply be handed a bill, and told "pay up or get out".
I'm really curious which aspects of our government you think are such a complete waste that they could be completely done away with. Pick a few that you find a complete waste of resources, tally the cost and subtract it from our trillion dollar deficit. How many hundreds of billions are left over?
Then, sit back and really honestly think about the programs you decide to completely throw away. Is the country really better off? Not you, not the richest half of the country, not the high-wage earners...the country, in it's entirety, and ALL of it's citizenry. Really? Is the entire country really better off without those programs?
Like I said earlier, there simply is no argument that will ever convince me that a single flat bill handed to every citizen with the idea that they "pay up or get out" is a fair system of taxation. I do NOT think our current system is perfect or even fair. But it is certainly better than handing someone that makes $15,000 a year a bill for $25,000 and telling them tough luck, get lost...:shrugs::bang:
Leew
New member
There would have to be guidelines to define what to tax. I hate double tax like paying sales tax and property tax on a car. If you have a sales tax on material that is them made into something else and sold, that would be a double tax. The manufacture would have to pass along that cost to the consumer.
I think states could still have a state sales tax, in fact they could replace their state income tax with a sales tax.
I can lots of resistance to this but it would be fair. If you chose to save your money and buy cheap so much the better. You won't be a burden on the system when you retire. Which bring up another can of worms.
We absolutely need some form of government. The battle will be to decide what form. At least that will be the battle after the battle getting rid of the current congress.
Lucille
New member
Hahahaha, They can't even keep foreign citizens out now, how the heck they gonna get rid of those who don't pay up? :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
wstphal
working in the Gulag
I'd be willing to consider a national sales tax or VAT if we got rid of the income tax. Trouble is that then the low wage earners would end up paying MORE than the high wage earners (because they spend every cent that they get) and that would be unfair, at least according to Rich.